Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Hardware - Troubleshooting and Discussion > Mac Desktops > Mac Pro w/ FCP Studio 2 Drive configurations

Mac Pro w/ FCP Studio 2 Drive configurations
Thread Tools
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Waxhaw, NC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 2, 2008, 07:03 PM
 
I am new to the forum and looking for sound advice on the proper direction to go with configuring drives for use in video editing. I have included the hardware and software information at the end of the post. I have tried to include all of the information requested in other similar posts from a forum search, so this is a long post.

My girlfriend has been using FCP and MiniDV for hobby/small projects for a few years, but she has taken the plunge to try and make some more professional content. The hardware platform is:

The content for the current project is being filmed in DVCPro50, but the camera is capable of DVCProHD formats which could be used in the future. DVCPro50 is about 1/2 GB/min and we are transferring via a 160 GB Firestore. I estimate about 2 TB of data in raw footage prior to editing with the final product being around 90 minutes (45 GB in DVCPro50). Final distribution would be SD-DVD most likely, but that would be too far down the road for me to commit to.

I would like to set-up a robust data storage solution for this project with the ability to do future projects in higher resolution formats, but not likely the same length (5-20 minutes estimated). One thing that has become painfully obvious to me is that by switching from MiniDV to the tapeless workflow, we have no safe back-up of original media at all. The data goes from the Firestore to a hard disk every night and as soon as we fill the drive (500 GB Western Digital 'green series') I pull the drive and install a new one. At this time, this is the only place the original data is stored.

I would like a solution that addresses the following:

1) Will allow original footage to be stored in 2 physical locations offline. My current pan is to pretty much image the current drive and store offsite.

2) Have semi-critical data redundantly protected and available for use. I believe this could be done with a RAID 1 set-up. If I understand correctly, this would require 4 TB of storage to keep all 2 TB available at any given time. We might be able to manage the workflow to have less available at one time, but this would be the easiest function, I think.

3) Have a scratch drive that is as fast as practical until we hit diminishing returns to reduce rendering time. If I understand FCP and a scratch drive, it is basically just a temporary location where all of the puzzle pieces get put together, therefore if it crashed, no data is lost, as it can be repaired and the project simply re-rendered. Any FCP experts please correct me, as I have no experience with this. I think a RAID 0 set-up for the scratch drive is an option. If this were a low return solution, a single dedicated scratch drive would be used instead.

I have seen various options for eSATA storage, which seems to be a good direction. I have also noted that PCI-X eSATA cards are not all hardware RAID cards and from what I have experienced in the Windows world, hardware RAID is a better solution than software RAID. I do not know if the above proposal for #2 and #3 are correct and if so, is this a single card solution. I believe that a cheap eSATA card with an enclosure that has the hardware RAID 1 inside would address #2, but I am not clear if the RAID 0 for #3 could be accomplished with a low end eSATA card. I have one on hand, but don't believe this is going to work. Any suggested part numbers or brands would be appreciated for both the card and an enclosure that does the hardware RAID.

The infamous budget question now must be addressed. There is no money that was initially allotted for storing the amount of data that is being generated safely, but that doesn't mean I want to do it for free. I would prefer to meet all goals above for less than $3000, but I also don't need the prettiest enclosures or a plug and play solution. I am fine working at the command line level in Linux and Windows, but am not fluent in OS X, which appears to be based on UNIX or a derivative. I figure $650 for hard disks to be stored offline and additional money for the required arrays, cards, online drive, enclosures etc. If the solution were well under $3000, I’d be thrilled, as this project is entirely funded from our pocket, but a roust solution is the first priority. I would like to have the system on-line within 1 month.

I guess my last question would be what factors are used in determining the required size for a scratch drive for use in FCP?

Thanks for reading through this post. If you made it this far, you probably have good information to help work this out.

Best Regards,

Sandy.

Hardware:
Mac G5 1.8 Duel PowerPC
PCI-X slots
2 internal SATA drives (3gb/s drives, but not sure about the interface on the Mac). One drive holds the OS, FCP and other MAC software. The other drive is dedicated exclusively to data. This drive gets changed often.
8GB RAM
Panasonic AGHVX-200
Firestore 100 (160 GB)

Software:
OSX Leopard current revision
Final Cut Pro Studio 2 current revision
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2008, 03:02 AM
 
Ahh, you're going to get an ear full; or is that eye full since it's a text medium? Thanks for reading all the old threads and providing details instead of forcing us to painfully extract them from you.

Recommendations
1) I really want to recommend tape here; it's cheap for marginal capacity and designed for medium-long term storage (in the right environment). The previous generation of LTO (cheaper) or AIT (faster) is about $1-2k for a drive and $100/TB for tape. 1.5TB drives (shipping later this month, haven't seen an MSRP but probably $400ish) in single drive enclosures is another option I like, but the cost will end up about the same as tape for this project. 1TB drives ($200) in single drive enclosures would save you about $800 compared to the previous two options, but if you go over 2TB/1.82TiB you're now up to 6 disks which is a bit of a hassle and erases $400-500 of the cost savings. If you go with disk here, I'd suggest FW800 enclosures ($70) rather than eSATA since (as far as I know) OS X, like Windows, doesn't support hot swapping eSATA (although the enclosure I'll probably recommend supports both).

2) I'd go with two multi-bay hardware RAID eSATA enclosures here; one for the data you're working on and one for backup. Figure 3x1TB in each in RAID0 is the minimum, with 4x1TB preferred (but $400 more). Keep all the raw footage as well in work in progress on one and use the other as a Time Machine (or other incremental backup software... no cloning!) target.

3) I like single WD VelociRaptor for scratch unless you need a lot more than 200GiB for scratch; at this point I'll defer to the FCP experts on how much space you need for effective scratch usage.

Price summary
Tape drive, SCSI card, and ten 400GB tapes: ~$1500 + 10*$40 = ~$1900
Four 1.5TB disks and enclosures: 4 * ($400 + $70) = $1900
Four 1TB disks and enclosures : 4 * ($180 + $70) = $1000
Two 5 bay enclosures, six 1TB hard drives, and an eSATA card: 2*$225 + 6*$200 + $250 = $1900
VelociRaptor: $300

Comes in a hair north of your $3000 goal at $3200 with no more than 2TB/1.82TiB of raw footage.
Why are the prices different for the 1TB drives? For the raw storage I'm going with Seagates to save 10% and get marginally better transfer rates, but for the online storage/backup I'm going with Hitachis for their superior IO performance.

Questions
Can you shoot DVCPRO/DVCPRO25 instead of 50? This would save substantially for both on-site and off-site disk.
If you stay with DVCPRO50, how confident are you about coming in under/over 2TB/1.82TiB?
What's the time frame for having a viable solution? Ok if it's a month or so, or would you like to have something up and running by the end of the week?
How many 500GB drives do you have now? It'd be nice to use them as off-site backup for processed footage.
Which dual 1.8 G5 do you have? The original ones had PCI-X while the later ones just had PCI.
Will you send me a link to the trailer when it's done?

I'll provide specific product links later once the MacNN forums community has had some back and forth on the solution.
I suspect this will be one of the shorter posts in this thread; they're only going to get longer as SierraDragon and friends pile on.
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Waxhaw, NC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2008, 02:12 PM
 
Thanks for the response mduell. To answer your questions:

1) I am far from the video expert, so I have less confidence in switching formats now that we're in progress. She chose DVCPro50 for a reason that I am unaware of. I thought she was going to shoot in 720p24 (I think) which had similar file size requirements, but she chose DVCPro50. I'm not sure if it would be safe to switch formats as she is shooting based on locations, not in a linear fashion, so she'll be editing the footage together from various times. There is already about 700Gb worth of footage.

2) It looks like the real number should be around 1.5Tb, so I am rounding up to 2Tb for insurance. I am 90% confident that it will be 1.5Tb.

3) For the editing portion of the solution, a month is easy. For the backup solution a month is OK, but sooner would make me sleep a little easier. As of right now, the first drive is full and being stored. The second drive is about half way there, so once its out of the machine I'll be happier. The third drive will be done within 2 weeks. I'm just not a fan of relying on new hard drives as the only source for the original data.

4) There are a total of 4 500Gb drives on hand now. I was going to buy a few more just in case, but thought it would be better to get a plan in place, as if RAID is a solution, I've been told that buying them all at once reduces chances for different chips, firmware etc. This is what we do at work for our regular network.

5) This machine has the PCI-X configuration. I think it is about 3-4 years old, but time has been moving fast lately, so I could be off.

6) The original trailer was filmed for a project at the community college earlier this year. Since then she finished writing the script, had some cat changes and location changes, so it's not entirely the same, but the general idea is. Its kind of a romance/drama thing. She filmed it on the school's equipment. Since then we have purchased her own.

The link is:
http://www.ericalynneowens.com/whenlovecomeshome.htm

Thanks for the help!

Sandy.
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Waxhaw, NC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 5, 2008, 10:20 PM
 
Well, mduell, I guess your recommendations were spot on, as nobody else has offered a counterpoint.

Your value of $1500 for the drive and SCSI card seems to lead to a $1200 drive and a $300 card. I've been a newegg shopper for a while and they have various external SCSI options for the drive for around $1200 with similar specs. I'm not sure which way to go with the SCSI card, as the PCI-X (I assume) and Mac compatibility has me a little concerned. If there is a recommendation for both the drive and the card, that would be great, but the card is my bigger concern.

I think the 5 bay enclosures should be straightforward (AMS DS-2350s, add an eSATA card for the Mac), but if I'm wrong, I'd hate to go down a bad path. I would get 2 of these and a total of 6 or 8 drives. I don't know a thing about Time Machine, but I imagine if I read about it, I should be able to pick things up. I will try to understand the reason you are against cloning, but I am not clear on mirroring or cloning right now. I see only 1 eSATA connector on the above enclosure, so a card with 2 eSATA connectors should do for both, correct? Any preference or is this just a $70 special (your summary indicated $250)?

I am fine with a single scratch drive that is high performance, mounted internally, but I am still unclear about the methodology to size the drive. If it just needs to hold 2X the biggest file created (or something similar) I will try to determine this. I will research what the purpose of the scratch drive is and how to size it.

Any recommendations are appreciated.

Sandy.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2008, 11:45 PM
 
I'm surprised no one else has chimed in.

This ATTO SCSI card and this HP LTO2 drive or this HP LTO3 drive are all Mac compatible; note I think you'll also need a copy of EMC Retrospect since OS X doesn't support LTO drives AFAIK. Note I botched the math and you're either going to have to go with LTO3 for a $2150 drive/card combo and $100/TB tapes or LTO2 for a $1550 drive/card combo and $150/TB tapes; my previous math assumed the better of both figures.

AMS DS-2350S is a great enclosure, and I'd recommend this Sonnet eSATA card. The problem with cloning is that your backup is an exact copy of your working volume. Delete a file you didn't mean to? Corrupt a file? *Boom*, now you've got an exact copy of your problem.
( Last edited by mduell; Aug 6, 2008 at 11:52 PM. )
     
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2008, 05:24 AM
 
A few additional thoughts:
Tape Backup
Very good idea, tapes are durable and tested for long-term storage.

Scratch Drive
I also second mduell's idea to use one of the Raptors here (a very fast SATA harddrive made by Western Digital).

Storage
You emphasize redundancy and robustness. This IMO immediately excludes mduell's suggestion to use a RAID0. There are two options: either you look at hardware RAID5 solutions (e. g. by WiebeTech or perhaps you can manage to pick up a used XRaid) or alternatively I suggest something which is easier to configure and safer: just keep separate volumes and don't create a RAID at all. If you create a RAID0, you essentially triple the probability of hardware failure -- and if one drive fails, you lose all data on the RAID0 volume. Since you have explicitly mentioned robustness, your storage requirements dictate that you may either use a combination of RAID0 and RAID1 or you use a RAID5. A RAID5 is probably not a viable option due to your budget (RAID5s including storage cost around $3k+). RAID0+1 = RAID0 + RAID1 might be an option, but you `waste' a lot of capacity: you combine RAID0 (= striping) and RAID1 (= mirroring). One way to do this is to combine two drives to a mirror and then create a large RAID0 of these mirrored harddrives. If you want about 3 TB of usable capacity, you need six 1 TB drives (or four 1.5 TB drives). A RAID5 with these six drives would give you 6-1 TB = 5 TB usable capacity.

The upcoming version of MacOS X Server will change that: there you can use a new filesystem to create what is called a RAIDZ: it is roughly equivalent to a RAID5, i. e. 6 1 TB drives combined in a RAIDZ will give you 5 TB usable capacity. The caveat here is that (i) 10.6 hasn't been released yet and (ii) 10.6 won't run on PowerPC-based Macs. In any case, with ZFS, Mac users will be a lot more flexible when it comes to storage solutions.

The data you have is easily grouped by projects, so there is probably no need to have one big volume that stores all the raw footage. Then you can use single drives, not bother with configuring RAIDs (a significant source for data loss with RAIDs are errors in configuring software) and still rely on relatively cheap enclosures.

Perhaps you will find this thread of interest to you: some MacNN members detail their storage solution here. The thread is from 2006, so in some respects (most notably harddrive capacities) it's not up to date anymore.
( Last edited by OreoCookie; Aug 7, 2008 at 05:50 AM. )
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2008, 11:23 PM
 
RAID5 has some upsides (although another $3000+ and a much more complex controller) and RAID10 is even better (no downtime, no performance loss, but another $1500), but I don't see my proposed solution as being that risky. If the working volume fails she can recover from the backup volume (about 6 hours of downtime, which is less than the time to rebuild a RAID5) and if the backup volume fails she can recover from the repurposed 500s (which I proposed to use for backup of various processed work). If both were to fail simultaneously, she could recover from the raw footage from the off-site tapes and the processed work from the 500s.

Going with a non-RAID option for the working storage is an idea I can get behind; unfortunately Time Machine doesn't support multiple targets, so you need a unified volume there.
     
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2008, 05:36 AM
 
Time Machine is not a good backup solution for video yet, because if you change one bit in a file, the whole file needs to be copied again (this will be alleviated with ZFS, here, only changed blocks are copied). Since the OP needs to buy Retrospect or a similar software to back up to tape, he can and should use that software as well.

The OP has mentioned several times he wants reliability and his storage solution to be failure proof. A RAID0 doesn't fit that bill. A RAID5 would be the pro-grade solution in this case, but it seems that it is out of (financial) reach, unless the OP forgoes the tape drive (which I recommended against).
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2008, 10:23 PM
 
RAID5 is by no means failure proof... you controller causes corruption and you're hosed; or you lose two disks. With the backups I've suggested, I think the risk of RAID0 is well managed.
The raw footage should be excluded from Time Machine backups, to avoid the single bit change versioning you've noted.
( Last edited by mduell; Aug 9, 2008 at 12:26 AM. )
     
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2008, 03:55 AM
 
No, a RAID5 protects against failure of one disk, just like RAID0+1 (unless you get lucky and drives from different parts fail). Ditto for failure of the controller (although there are expensive, very expensive RAID systems with a second controller).

I'm not sure why you `don't like' RAID level 5, but it's the professionally most used RAID level.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Waxhaw, NC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2008, 04:58 PM
 
I timed out on my original response, so hopefully this isn't a duplicate post.

Thanks for the continuing help! I found the reference threads during an earlier search, but due to my lack of knowledge at that time, I was missing some of the important points. Now that I have re-read them, I understand the severity of the different choices.

I have also determined that I did not understand the function of the scratch drive in FCP. I was under the impression that it was only used as a 'temp' location for writing the data and then deleting it once the render was done. It really appears that the scratch drive is the main holding area for the movie.

I want to outline my understanding to see if I am on the right track:

The raw footage is imported into the project. It remains on the source drive and the import is basically just a file pointer saying that it can be used. Then, the footage is moved onto the timeline and cut in/out points can be added. At this point, if it is only cutting things together on the timeline (no effects etc, just hard cuts) there is no render step and no information is moved anywhere. If effects/transitions are added, then a render is required to process those effects. This is new information created and does go to the scratch drive. If you lost the scratch drive, you have not lost anything that couldn't be replaced with a re-render. Lastly, when you're satisfied with the project, you export it, which creates one or more movie files which are new and unique and unrelated to the original footage from a file standpoint.

If that is the case, it seems to me that the original footage must be archived on tape. The original footage needs to go to a hard drive (or array etc) that is pretty fast from a reading standpoint. It must be somewhat safe, but not completely mission critical, because in the event of a loss, it can be regenerated from the tape and if no names/locations change, then the project file will be able to recreate the cuts etc with no issue. This goes even a step further with the rendering and effects, in that all you lose is time, not actual creativity. Lastly, her intent is not to export the movie on a daily basis or anything like that, so speed of the export drive is the least critical.

If the above is true, tape for the original footage is a complete requirement. Speed is a bigger factor for the original footage and scratch drive, both of which would not result in a catastrophic loss if a failure occurred. The project file is one of the most critical files, so it should be backed up in multiple places, but it is small, so a copy on the main system volume, the working drive, the scratch drive and a thumb drive would likely be as safe as required.

My current thoughts lead me to believe that I can't afford a RAID 5, even though it does seem to be a common enterprise level solution. I think the scratch drive for renderings doesn't need to be very large, so a single drive with excellent sequential read/write performance is good enough. I think the size could be 100 GB or less, but still don't know for sure. I read somewhere, though, that the internal SATA connection on the G5 doesn't play well with 10,000 RPM drives, but don't know this as a fact. I'm leaning toward the RAID 0+1 for the raw footage drive, as it can be replaced from tape if needed, but it would still be a bit of a pain, however the speed advantage could make the editing process more satisfying than a non-RAID 0 solution. While the 0+1 would require more money (approx $800, give or take) than a simple RAID 0, that seems to be somewhat inexpensive compared to lost time at normal hourly rates. Even though she is not paying herself, she is keeping track for future reference, so I think it would be a fair cost justification.

If I have made any errors in the above, please steer me back on path. I think placing the order for at least the tape system would be a goal for early next week. The rest can still be worked out. One last question on that front: The ATTO card recommended above was an Ultra 320. Old SCSI 1 devices still functioned on SCSI 2 if I recall, but there are so many new SCSI platforms, I'm not sure that this still holds true. Specifically, one of the tape drives recommended was an SAS (serial SCSI) and I'm pretty sure the Ultra 320 is a parallel SCSI controller, so my gut says they are not compatible. Also, if the drives not Ultra 320 speed, is there an advantage to getting that card over just an Ultra II?

Any help finalizing these issues is greatly appreciated!

Sandy.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2008, 05:53 PM
 
It's not that I don't like RAID5 (personally I've got nothing against the guy), but I don't think it's the best solution to most situations and a claim of "professionalism" is absurd.

The advantage of RAID5 over RAID10 is storage efficiency; up to about 85% for the former (few will push a single RAID5 array past 7 disks) vs 50% for the latter. This advantage should translate into a cost advantage due to the number of disks and the size of the backplane/enclosure, but it's usually dwarfed by the price of the controller.

Where's the professionalism in an array you can't access while degraded (unless your controller costs more than a nice condo)? Where's the professionalism in long rebuild times? If a situation could accept the downtime of the previous two combined, why isn't recovering a RAID0 from backups acceptable in the same situation? Where's the professionalism in poor write performance? What professionals are choosing RAID5? Not IT professionals; look around a data center and you see mostly RAID0, RAID1, and combinations of the two.

If the OP could afford RAID10, I'd recommend RAID10; she can't, so instead I've proposed a RAID0 solution with substantial backups. I don't see any reason to recommend RAID5 for her situation.
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jul 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2008, 07:03 PM
 
Raid & eSata is the way to go. You will need as fast a setup as you can afford. I have a G5 dual 2 GB and a MBP 2.33 dual and use a Caldigit S2VR Duo >http://www.CalDigit.com/S2VRDuo.asp< with two 1 TB drives in raid 1 mirrored configuration but to save a little money on a backup I bought there FireWireVR with FW 800 >http://www.CalDigit.com/FireWireVR.asp< both of these drives are VERY fast and keep up with 5 steams of video with no problems. To use the laptop with the S2VR you will need a SATA ExpressCard. I don't see the need to have all your video available at one time but to get something in the 4 TB range that is fast & reliable you will need to spend in excess of $5000. I would not recommend using internal drives for storage, just backup of your main drive and as scratch drives.
I have 1 500 GB as main drive 1 5 GB as backup and 2 400 GB as scratch drives and music storage. Check out Ken Stone's website >http://www.kenstone.net/fcp_homepage/fcp_homepage_index.html< Good luck
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Waxhaw, NC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2008, 09:19 PM
 
I think I'm most of the way there.

Does the AMS enclosure (SIL4726 chip) support RAID 10 on Mac OS Leopard? If so, I think that I could use 4 1TB drives in RAID 10 in 1 enclosure for the least expensive solution for speed and moderate data security for the raw footage on the working drive at 2 TB. The tape backup would still be used, but now I'm confused as to why I would need 2 enclosures or 6 drives. The only thing I can think is that hardware RAID 10 does not actually work properly on the Mac OS and the proposed workaround gives 2 separate RAID 0 set-ups.

Thanks for the info.

Sandy.
     
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2008, 04:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by mduell View Post
It's not that I don't like RAID5 (personally I've got nothing against the guy), but I don't think it's the best solution to most situations and a claim of "professionalism" is absurd.
In the professional environments I've been involved in, RAID5 (or sometimes RAID6) or nested RAID levels involving RAID5 have been the RAID-level of choice when a large amount of continuous storage is needed. That's the way it is here. Other RAID levels, e. g. RAID0 or RAID1 are used, but (in a professional environment) because of their specific advantages (e. g. speed or perhaps to mirror the boot drive).

In non-professional environments, things are a bit different in my opinion, largely, because SATA cards that do (at least some sort of) hardware RAID0 and RAID1 are plentiful, but those that can create RAID5s are more expensive. Again, things may change to a certain degree when ZFS is adopted for MacOS X non-server, but we're not there yet. (RAIDZ, btw, has no write-hole.)

In any case, my message to the OP was that if (s)he wants to have to correct amount of failure proofness, then a RAID5 is in my opinion the correct one. But I mentioned that this isn't an option with the current budget.
Originally Posted by mduell View Post
The advantage of RAID5 over RAID10 is storage efficiency; up to about 85% for the former (few will push a single RAID5 array past 7 disks) vs 50% for the latter. This advantage should translate into a cost advantage due to the number of disks and the size of the backplane/enclosure, but it's usually dwarfed by the price of the controller.
Costs of hardware are in many environments the smallest factor in the equation.
Originally Posted by mduell View Post
Where's the professionalism in an array you can't access while degraded (unless your controller costs more than a nice condo)? Where's the professionalism in long rebuild times?
I think we use the word `professional' with different meanings in mind.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Waxhaw, NC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2008, 07:16 PM
 
OP here (he, BTW. She is the one actually doing the film work).

I think the tape side of the equation is solved. I think the real question for me now is does the Sil4726 chip support RAID 10 on Leopard? If it does, I think this is the spot I can afford to be in right now, but if it doesn't the waters are still somewhat muddy. I think my inital desire for fault tolerance might have been overstated, but I am concerned about data loss due to hardware failure, but can tolerate loss due to human error. If I can't afford RAID 5, but the enclosure does support RAID 10, I think that's a good compromise, budget considered.

Thanks for the help!

Sandy.
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Waxhaw, NC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2008, 10:01 PM
 
There is a Norco card based on the SIL3124-2 chip, which claims compatability with the SIL3726 and 4726 chips. Is there a compatability issue with this card and the selected chipsets on Mac OSX Leopard? I have a mini-tower, can buy a bridge with the 3726 or 4726 chipset (less than $100) and have the Norco card, so this would save hundreds of dollars vs the Sonnet and AMS enclosure combination and have additional bays.

Off base?

Sandy
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Waxhaw, NC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2008, 10:22 PM
 
I have found a local resource to backup our original footage to LTO3 tapes from the 500gb drives (usb enclosure) for free, so I'm going that route for the original footage. I feel that I have the option to go with the Norco/bridge combo if there isn't knowledge here that says it won't work. For now, I think it might as well be worth a try. We'll have spare 500 gb drives for a while and she said she thought the speed would be OK without any improvement over what she had, so why spend the money for RAID etc prior to verifying that it can be done economically.

Again, any thoughts are appreciated.

Sandy.
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Aug 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2008, 01:15 AM
 
HI Guys, just adding about ULTRIUM LTO4 tape drives and MACPRO what I have done. I have a PAnasonic HVX-200 and shot in DVCPROHD in 720 & 1080/25p. Its all P2 card based (no video tape). AFter some loss of P2 data from a dodgy external FW800 disk (lost 640GB!), I am implementing the following and eliminating ANY external FW800 single disk enclosures (except DROBO). THese current external disk are 4 x 1TB Le Cie BIG disk 1 and most of them have issues with their external power supplies. Lost a lot of stuff over the last year. (never again!)

SOlution & archive:
• implemented DROBO FW800 with 4 x 500GB SATA2 disk (left over from replacement of MAC PRO with 4 x 1TB Seagates 7200RPM SATA2 disks)
• implemented QUANTUM ULTRIUM LTO4 SAS i/f HH desktop/external tape drive (purchased from USA) and several ULTRIUM4 tape cartridges (@ 800GB each). I required a SAS HBA however I went upgrade and added an ATTO R380 EXPRESS SAS for internal RAID (R0 striping over 3 internal 1 x TB DDM'S) and external port for SAS connector for ULTRIUM LTO4 tape drive.
• SOFTWARE: using TOLIS BRU "PRODUCER EDITION" - this is new and currently in BETA.. We reviewed TOLIS BRU LE and looks fantastic of singe user OSX 10.5! Tolis state all works fine with ATTO SAS HBA on MAC PRO under 10.5.4. (year ago I was an retrospect user but today it is rather poor.. would not recommend it for OSX unless you want do nothing but BACKUPS.. I want ARCHIVING!).

I would also propose that the over all price and risk for ARCHIVE storage in a DATA tape is far less than watching it spin around on power consuming spinning cheap (SATA) for ages in the hope that you MIGHT access it one day in the future. SINce 1960's I.T. has realised that this is not the way to go (despite the price KB/MB/GB/TB)... it is simply too risky from a hardware and now software corruption (fiele systems) and also hardware ERU issues... without some implementation of multiple instances. RAid 1 is great but corruption across the disks is still possible - ask the banks..best to have another or separate instances elsewhere.

HAving been burnt badly TWICE now with external disk enclosures in a P2 (contemoryary media format [CMF aka 'tapeless'] workflow, I am spreading my risk to not only a single tape volume (LTO4 volumes is about $USD60-80 for 800GB), but to MULTIPLE INSTANCES - simply on two different tape volumes.

In the past content loss was not such a huge deal when acquisition was on video tape.. sadly the newer workflows are using CMF's.. so DATA TAPE looks really good again.

My setup costs for the tape drive (QUANTUM ULTRIUM LTO4 desktop HH tape drive SAS interface) + HBA + software (Tolis BRU) + an SAS HBA is under $USD3400. The set up costs are a lot more than buying a bunch of DDM'S (disk drive modules) and sticking them in an enclosure, however as one adds tape volumes @ $USD60/800GB, the cost for the storage reduces significantly... especially with multiple instances.
HTH
W
HK
     
   
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:55 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2